Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Could your daily cycle commute be saving your life?

New research suggests we need an hour's exercise per day to counter eight hours at a desk ...

New research shows at least an hour of physical activity is necessary every day to offset the health impact of sitting at a desk for eight hours.

The latest research into the perils of modern working practises, published in the Lancet on Wednesday, suggests the current WHO recommendation of 150 minutes of exercise per week may not counter the risk of premature death caused by long hours of desk work.

However, the team of international experts behind the paper found this risk was eliminated among those who did at least an hour’s physical activity per day, and only sat for four hours per day.

Middle-aged cycle commuters typically 4-5kg lighter than those who drive to work

Researchers analysed data from 16 previous studies encompassing more than one million people, and predominantly focused on those aged over 45 living in the USA, Western Europe and Australia.

In a two- to 18-year follow-up the risk of dying was 9.9 per cent for those with desk jobs that did little activity, compared with 6.8 per cent for those who sat less than four hours per day and were active for at least one hour per day. 

While not everyone lives within cycling distance of work, or feels safe cycling on UK roads, there are other smaller things people can do to improve their health. Five minute breaks every hour are believed to be beneficial, as are replacing some of each evening's rest time with some form of physical activity.

Standing desks have been mooted as a solution to computer-based work, with recommendations people spend two hours standing at work, building up to an ideal four. Meanwhile staff at the journal that published the study, the Lancet, have introduced cycle desks.

You can read more on this in the Guardian's report, here.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
Fish_n_Chips | 7 years ago
1 like

I train pretty hard in the evenings, a desk job would allow me to recover.

Avatar
Edgeley | 7 years ago
1 like

This is not news.

 

It also stands a good chance of being statistically flawed unless it was very carefully designed.

The people who exercise may be less likely to be in danger of dying in the short term (whatever that was deemed to be in this study) not because they exercise but because people who are unfit are both less likely to exercise and more likely to die soon.

 

All together now, correlation does not equal causation.

 

Though in this case, there probably are relatively few reasons not to pretend that it does.

 

 

Avatar
matthewn5 replied to Edgeley | 7 years ago
0 likes
Edgeley wrote:

This is not news.

It also stands a good chance of being statistically flawed unless it was very carefully designed.

The people who exercise may be less likely to be in danger of dying in the short term (whatever that was deemed to be in this study) not because they exercise but because people who are unfit are both less likely to exercise and more likely to die soon.

All together now, correlation does not equal causation.

Though in this case, there probably are relatively few reasons not to pretend that it does.

If it's in the Lancet it would have been peer reviewed by people who know what they're talking about.

Avatar
aladdin pain | 7 years ago
0 likes

I've now read in a couple of articles that less is more, for example three vigorous 30-minute rides per week results in greater weight loss and better general health than three vigorous 60-minute rides.  If this is true, and I (not being an expert) cannot see how it could be, it is crummy news.  I want to keep thinking that riding hard for hours and feeling like I'm going to die makes me healthier than everybody else, plus does anything sound less-satisfying than a 30-minute ride?

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to aladdin pain | 7 years ago
2 likes
aladdin pain wrote:

I've now read in a couple of articles that less is more, for example three vigorous 30-minute rides per week results in greater weight loss and better general health than three vigorous 60-minute rides.  If this is true, and I (not being an expert) cannot see how it could be, it is crummy news.  I want to keep thinking that riding hard for hours and feeling like I'm going to die makes me healthier than everybody else, plus does anything sound less-satisfying than a 30-minute ride?

 

That study in particular (Danish one I think) was for a group of overweight men starting exercise.

 

Basically an hour burned them out, they couldn't handle it. Thirty minutes was tough enough to do some work but leave them feeling energised. Afterwards they still had energy to do other activities instead of crashing out.

 

This doesn't apply over the long term and is only a nice guide for overweight people starting a new diet plan/exercise regime. Also it ignores the longer term effects - would the 1 hour group have built endurance which would have been beneficial in the long term.

 

Everyone will have to gradually exercise more, week on week, either by intensity or duration, but if you overdo it, you burn out or get injured - motivation dies and you fall off track.

 

Your 60 minute sessions will have to get longer, or harder. Even then it won't be enough to contunally improve. You'll have to do 4 and on and on. Until you're doing 8 to 12 hours a week like category racers.

 

Then you either steal pretty much every KOM in your area or you get a licence and start racing yourself enlightened

 

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
0 likes

It's interesting that it only needs an hour of moderate (not intensive) exercise, so walking for an hour also the same effect. However, cycling is a lot more fun than just walking.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 7 years ago
1 like

This isn't really news - it's long been known that regular but fairly modest exercise is all you need and that more intensive or extreme stuff isn't necessary for general health (good for beating your mates though...). 

But the message is worth repeating for all those who still think exercise means they have to take out a gym membership - and then only go twice, or don't even start. Cycling and walking, of course, are excellent ways of combining exercise and existing activity (e.g. going to work, the shops, etc.). But you knew that.

Avatar
Jimnm | 7 years ago
0 likes

 3

Avatar
Jimnm | 7 years ago
0 likes

I would disagree, it's your life style that helps you live longer, providing there is nothing in your genes that rears its ugly head. Cycling keeps you fit.  Cycling in Heavy traffic can increase your chances of an early departure of your luck runs out. 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
0 likes

Well I'm having to see an eye specialist as I may have pigment dispersion syndrome and vigorous exercise may be bad for me. You can't win!!

Avatar
brooksby | 7 years ago
3 likes

Oh God yes! I've been on holiday this week with no opportunity to ride and it's killing me!

Avatar
burtthebike | 7 years ago
5 likes

Well, not exactly news, as the benefits of regular exercise have been known about for decades, but it's always useful to have some more amunition to counter the desk jockeys who tell you that cycling is dangerous.

Mayer Hillman in "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" (1992) showed that the benefits of cycling outweighed the risks by 20:1 with other research puting it as high as 80:1, and regular cyclists live two years longer than average.

Avatar
1961BikiE | 7 years ago
7 likes

Being a pedant. Surely its "prolongs" your life. At the end of the day nothing saves our lives, we all die. Feeling cynical and realistic.

Avatar
gazza_d | 7 years ago
3 likes

Does the cycling desk count on Strava though?

Latest Comments